Re: Bradman today?


Don II wrote:

When i talked about Bradman being body-lined, you talked about him
having faced the likes of Larwood easily. You could have just pointed
out that Bradman did not face Larwood in 1948 as i claimed and
corrected
me. As i said, i am not too familiar with cricket of pre-1970s (but it
is a
fact that he got body-lined in his last series). Instead, you started
insulting me
talking about language skills and it was clear that like any other
Aussie you are perturbed when anyone takes "untouchable" Bradman for a
ride. So, my attack
on you was justified. I can see that you are still talking about my
character when
you have no right to take personal attacks on my nature. You and
Hollow-mans are
two sides of the same coin in the way you divert attention from talking
cricket in the middle of a thread.

To be fair claiming that Larwood Bodylined Bradman in 1948 is an error
of cricket history of the magnitude of claiming that WG Grace captained
England in the 1930s or that Donald Bradman was primarliy known for his
reverse swing bowling. Claims like that do rather set off alarm bells
suggesting "this person is talking junk, ignore him". Bodyline is
etched in the collective memory of cricket fans (or at least I thought
it was), even though very few of us would have been watching back then,
to make basic errors about it on a cricket newsgroup such as this is
always likely to provoke ridicule.

Moreover, it doesn't seem to be a momentary lapse from you since you're
still claiming that Bradman was Bodylined in 1948 (just not by Larwood
now). Following the infamous 1932-3 Bodyline tour a new law was
introduced in 1934 to give umpires the power & responsibility to
intervene if they considered a bowler was deliberately aiming at a
batsman with intent to injure, so if Bodyline was attempted in 1948 the
umpires would have put a stop to it. After the dust settled on the
1932-3 tour the MCC was so shamed by the tactic that they asked Harold
Larwood to write an apology for bowling Bodyline. In broader contexts
so great was the offence taken by the Australians at Jardine's Bodyline
offense that tension between England & Australia remained high
throughout the period before WWII. To think that after all this, in
1948 such a maligned tactic could be revived is ludicrous.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sangakkara and Gilchrist: some thoughts on sportsmanship
    ... Even at the height of the bodyline controversy there ... Jardine had such a dislike for Bradman that on ... many Australian cricket fans use that series as ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Cricinfos All-Time XI
    ... Most people who saw both May and Barrington rate May ... Larwood has been picked on the ... Either bring in Tyson as a pure pace bowler, ... against Bradman except for that one series in which incidentally he ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Modern Don?
    ... bowling attack to the cleaners, a few players took a team to the ... but Bradman is the greatest batsman who over a career took ... cleaners in the Bodyline series. ... Lower than his normal YES but dominating still. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Modern Don?
    ... bowling attack to the cleaners, a few players took a team to the ... but Bradman is the greatest batsman who over a career took ... Lower than his normal YES but dominating still. ... dominating the bowling attack; leave alone taking Larwood ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Modern Don?
    ... bowling attack to the cleaners, a few players took a team to the ... In the 1932-33 "Bodyline" series, Bradman played in 4 ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
Loading